Question for Myjack

J

jacks_mum

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 March 2006
Messages
17,502
Location
Somewhere else
Visit site
Myjack, I am just curious why you persist in what you are saying when part of your claims have already been contradicted in court by JG's own vet? Does this not make you doubt your claims even the tiniest bit?

Incase you have no idea what I am talking about, I am talking about your repeated claim that no dead equines were found at Spindles Farm and your insinuation that it was an RSPCA conspiracy of some sort in claiming there were.

When asked about the prescence of 32 dead horses at the farm Mr Parker -JG's vet - told the court JG had 'got behind' in disposing of the bodies over the xmas period.

This not only bears up the RSPCA's claim that there were dead horses at the farm - and contradicts what you tell us you know - but also raises the questions, to me at least, of how many other equines have died on that farm in the time he has been there and whether anyone would consider that to be an 'acceptable' number of deaths in such a short space of time in the run of a normal business? I accept that you do lose stock but is that not an amazingly high level of stock to lose?

Are you not just a little bit less sure of your claims?

In your position, I would be.
 
A VERY VERY GOOD POINT !!! X-MAS is only a few days and the animals were removed from there 2 weeks AFTER X-Mas
AND the tests that came back showed that they had all died due to lack on nutrition = NO FEED
And even more it strengthens my theory that M.J knows absolutely NOTHING
 
[ QUOTE ]
Myjack, I am just curious why you persist in what you are saying when part of your claims have already been contradicted in court by JG's own vet? Does this not make you doubt your claims even the tiniest bit?

Incase you have no idea what I am talking about, I am talking about your repeated claim that no dead equines were found at Spindles Farm and your insinuation that it was an RSPCA conspiracy of some sort in claiming there were.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never stated that NO dead equines were at the farm. But have always debated the number.

[ QUOTE ]
When asked about the prescence of 32 dead horses at the farm Mr Parker -JG's vet - told the court JG had 'got behind' in disposing of the bodies over the xmas period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr Parker was never asked about 32 dead equines. He was asked about dead equines.

[ QUOTE ]
This not only bears up the RSPCA's claim that there were dead horses at the farm - and contradicts what you tell us you know - but also raises the questions, to me at least, of how many other equines have died on that farm in the time he has been there and whether anyone would consider that to be an 'acceptable' number of deaths in such a short space of time in the run of a normal business? I accept that you do lose stock but is that not an amazingly high level of stock to lose?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree with you IF 32 were dead. But that is UNTRUE.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you not just a little bit less sure of your claims?

In your position, I would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not.
 
[ QUOTE ]
A VERY VERY GOOD POINT !!! X-MAS is only a few days and the animals were removed from there 2 weeks AFTER X-Mas
AND the tests that came back showed that they had all died due to lack on nutrition = NO FEED
And even more it strengthens my theory that M.J knows absolutely NOTHING

[/ QUOTE ]

PW, ALL the FACTS will come out in court
grin.gif


BTW, have you tried looking for that report among the related topics of the amersham horses (here on H&H) to see if it still exists? Go to news >> and related stories.
 
well you have been very vocal in saying that dead horses have not been proven to be found at the farm which does imply that in your opinion there were none - you have never said that there were any and have repeatedly told us that the media and welfare charities are lying about finding bodies. see this thread:

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/2803706/page/0/fpart/all/vc/1

and this one:

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/sh...rue#Post2808494

You even questioned the existence of autopsy reports.

As for the 32 dead horses he was asked about, I will give you that he neither confirmed nor denied the amount, he just confirmed in his statement that JG had 'got behind' on disposal, that there WERE dead horses on the farm. Good enough for me.
 
[ QUOTE ]
well you have been very vocal in saying that dead horses have not been proven to be found at the farm which does imply that in your opinion there were none - you have never said that there were any and have repeatedly told us that the media and welfare charities are lying about finding bodies. see this thread:

[/ QUOTE ]

Please show me one time when I have ever said that NO dead equines were dead?

I have said they have lied about the numbers. Show me different if you can.

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/2803706/page/0/fpart/all/vc/1

and this one:

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/sh...rue#Post2808494

You even questioned the existence of autopsy reports.

As for the 32 dead horses he was asked about, I will give you that he neither confirmed nor denied the amount, he just confirmed in his statement that JG had 'got behind' on disposal, that there WERE dead horses on the farm. Good enough for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The number 32 was not presented to the vet.

As for the autopsy reports; Yes I questioned them - and for good reason.....where are they now? Do they still exist?
 
quote:

The number 32 was not presented to the vet.

But it was bandied around the court room by other professionals, including another vet. I would have thought that a good time to deny the number- if it can be denied.
 
[ QUOTE ]
quote:

The number 32 was not presented to the vet.

But it was bandied around the court room by other professionals, including another vet. I would have thought that a good time to deny the number- if it can be denied.

[/ QUOTE ]

....but absolutely NO solid evidence was presented to the judge or vets?

And by which side was it bandied by?
 
i believe that as it was a hearing to determine whether he could have the horses back or not and not a hearing to do with the cruelty and neglect charges, it was not therefore the place to present evidence of dead horses, that will wait for the trial, if it happens, but as they were mentioned, I would have thought it a good time to refute the numbers, if they are refutable.
 
[ QUOTE ]
i believe that as it was a hearing to determine whether he could have the horses back or not and not a hearing to do with the cruelty and neglect charges, it was not therefore the place to present evidence of dead horses, that will wait for the trial, if it happens, but as they were mentioned, I would have thought it a good time to refute the numbers, if they are refutable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but I disagree. The rspca were determined to keep those animals in their hands - therefore, they most certainly would have presented this evidence to show the animals would be in danger if returned to the Gray family. If they wasn't trying to prove that the animals were in danger of suffering cruelty and neglect if returned - just what was their argument for wanting to keep them from going back to the family?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Totally irrelevant myjack...thats not how the law works!

[/ QUOTE ]

If you say so.

But then what was their argument for wanting to keep them from going back to the family?
 
Because he is "allegedly" in breach of the newish welfare of animals law...Duty of care would be the most likely....
 
It would also be like saying he is not guilty without the benefit of a trial if they were returned to him prior to any proceedings. I know it is innocent until proven guilty but the decision of his guilt or innocence should be decided before the horses are returned or rehomed. It would set a dangerous precedence.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Because he is "allegedly" in breach of the newish welfare of animals law...Duty of care would be the most likely....

[/ QUOTE ]

Would duty of care not full under neglect and cruelty?
 
[ QUOTE ]
It would also be like saying he is not guilty without the benefit of a trial if they were returned to him prior to any proceedings. I know it is innocent until proven guilty but the decision of his guilt or innocence should be decided before the horses are returned or rehomed. It would set a dangerous precedence.

[/ QUOTE ]

....and what will be the outcry if/when he is found to be innocent? Will you be sending an apology to the family? Or will you be screaming that the verdict is wrong?
 
If the man is innocent then will be proven in court. If he's innocent, then he's innocent and that's all there is to it.

Why should I send an apology to the family? All I have done is raise awareness of the charities, raise funds for the charities and discuss a topical subject on line with friends and aquaintances. I have nothing to apologise for.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If the man is innocent then will be proven in court. If he's innocent, then he's innocent and that's all there is to it.

Why should I send an apology to the family? All I have done is raise awareness of the charities, raise funds for the charities and discuss a topical subject on line with friends and aquaintances. I have nothing to apologise for.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL....if you say so.

Maybe you should read previous posts of yours which show your attitude towards the man.
 
[ QUOTE ]
i won't apologise for attitude. his attitude towards horses is that they are a commodity - is he going to apologise to me for that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you seen his attitude?
 
Have YOU? And no monosyllabic crap answers MJ....either give us a concrete fact or pull your neck in. This is all becoming extremely tedious.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Have YOU? And no monosyllabic crap answers MJ....either give us a concrete fact or pull your neck in. This is all becoming extremely tedious.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well said spaniel,but the day we will actually get a proper answer from MJ it will be 2 Sundays in that week..all we get is quotes,quotes and bl00dy more quotes
mad.gif
we have NEVER had any facts from MJ, he/she/it just keeps questioning/quoting everybody else and tries to feed us with all the cr@p that he/she/it claims that the truth will come out
confused.gif
= B.S
cool.gif
 
Wonder whose family 'My jack is related to ' or acting for (as if we did not know) must be the only (SINGLE) person on the whole of this forum who is defending this horrible man and his family - funny that!!!!
 
The Judge at Oxford Magistrates Court yesterday had no hesitation about making a stay on the decision to leave the 29 ponies and donkeys at the sanctuaries, as requested by the RSPCA. Once the clear facts were placed before him by a very able QC (?) acting on behalf of the RSPCA, he was prepared to back-track on his original decision. JG did not appear in court, which was rather disappointing, he obviously thought better of it.

cool.gif
cool.gif
I____W A S _____ T H E R E
cool.gif
cool.gif
 
Well Myjack - As you say the truth will out! I would hope from the facts gleaned - that when the hearing gets to the High Court a sympathetic, animal loving judge hears the case. What ever the outcome I certainly would have no wish to leave JG in charge of my horses, dogs, cats, rabbits whatever. As far as I am concerned one dead horse left lying on the premises is one too many!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top